Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday June 17, 2011 @11:44AM
from the snowboard-stocks-plummet dept.

purkinje writes "Unusual calm in the solar cycle — called a solar activity minimum — has sparked claims that the Sun will cool the Earth, leading us into a new ice age. While Europe did experience a Little Ice Age during a solar activity minimum three centuries ago, the connection between sunspots and climate is a lot more complicated, and it's unlikely this change in the Sun's activity will cool Earth down — or even affect the climate at all. Plus, any cooling that might come from this would be less than the global warming that's been going on. So don't pull out that parka yet; a new ice age seems more than unlikely."

We're currently in an interglacial period of the current ice age, so it's not a matter of moving towards another one, but how long the interglacial period will last, and how if we're moving into a glaciation period will humanity be effecting that.

Not entirely true. Climate is chaotic in nature and can be likened to the "owl mask" of the Lorenz atrange attractor system, with glaciation being one orbit and inter-glaciation being the other. But if you displace the system too far, the system will lock onto a very different set of strange attractors and very different orbits, none of which are guaranteed to be glacial in nature. The problem with chaotic systems is that you can't ever know what "too much" means in advance, you can only ever know when the

We're currently in an interglacial period of the current ice age, so it's not a matter of moving towards another one, but how long the interglacial period will last, and how if we're moving into a glaciation period will humanity be effecting that.

I don't know how things have turned out since, but about a decade ago there was an article in Scientific American by someone who said yes, there's some cooling going on, but there's also the warming, and at present the warming is out-forcing the cooling. We'd be warming more quickly if the interglacial wasn't coming to an end, or cooling if not for what we've done to the atmosphere.

I've always found people who go on and on about global warming extremely annoying. They talk about saving the earth and the environment but the bottom line is it's about saving the status quo. There have been times in earths history when it was much hotter than it is now and much colder. Humans will survive and so will the earth. If or when the last man bites the dirt the earth will still be here live in kicking unless we managed to do something really bad like strip away the atmosphere.

A couple degrees of temperature rising can inundate a coastal city. That's not going to be "optimal". Stopping global warming was never about keeping summers from getting a little too uncomfortable. It's about global catastrophe caused by ecological and environmental upheaval.

Not going to happen. We've seen about a tenth of a degree warming in the first half of the 20th Century (now reversed), that occurred LONG before the rise of automobiles and factories adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Every prediction I've read about how much temperature change that the draconian measures would reverse are similarly in fractions of a degree over a period of a century.

Human activity just isn't affecting the climate all that greatly.

Any predictions of climate change on the level of several degrees is just scare-mongering.

It's not supportable based on what we've observed thus far. In fact atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 8 percent or so since the mid-1990s. According to climate alarmists, this should have caused measurable global warming. But none has been observed.

Human activity may indeed affect global climate, but it's like pouring a thimbleful of dye into a swimming pool.

This whole line of reasoning seems plausible on the surface, until you actually do some research into it.

It's not a matter of optimal, it's a matter of what we're used to. Radical, rapid change in climate (such as we're already experiencing, and it'll get much worse) changes rainfall patterns and other factors that will force us to change where we build our cities, where we grow our food, etc. That kind of adjustment is incredibly expensive, much more expensive than taking reasonable mitigation steps now

Putting aside for the moment whether or not I agree with global warming itself, you seem to harbor a patently false understanding of what exactly these "global warming alarmists" are after, because it's anything *but* maintaining the status quo. Changing entrenched lifestyles, adopting new and largely inefficient technologies, and taking the big oil companies and the entire infrastructures that support them out of the game is most assuredly *not* maintaining the status quo. Unless you were using status quo

True. The earth will still be around. Life will almost certainly still be around, although the environment will be very different. Worse has happened before. Humans will probably still be around, as we're pretty good technologists. We sure as hell may not like the transition period, though. Sure, we're being greedily protective of the status quo, but that's because large-scale climate change will be very, very expensive.

Now, from a particular Carlinesque viewpoint we are a "minor surface nuisance" and yes the Earth will survive, even as scientists predict when the Sun becomes a Red Giant near the end of it's Nuclear Cycle and it is reduced to a rock floating in space, the Earth will survive. It just wouldn't want to be a place where I

I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to pay attention or even do minimal research, there's not much point in talking to you. Go read something other than denialist propaganda, like... oh, I don't know, some issues of Science or something.

The last paper I read [agu.org] on the subject couldn't disprove it. This was done in the lab because doing real experiments in the real atmosphere with real cosmic rays is very hard. The best they can do is measure cloud formation in relation to solar wind levels. It will take a full normal solar cycle to do this.

Yup. But/. had to counter that bad story earlier that might have caused a few of the faithful to stray from the One True Religion and rags like Discover can be relied upon to provide rebuttal to any evidence that might bring AGW into question. Real scientists studying the the Sun come out with a "This is unusual, we didn't expect to see this. This might have consequences so we are putting out a press release so others can come look at our data." type report and a few days later we are reassured by purkinje that "any cooling that might come from this would be less than the global warming that's been going on."

We aren't told who purkinj is though, what his degree is in, who is financing him, etc. How many carbon credits or solar projects he is invested in, nothin. But we can trust him because he is Faithful. Also note that this guy seems to have a straight pipe to the submission queue and never participates in the comments.

Meanwhile the IPCC is in yet another fresh scandal where it is learned that they allowed a Greanpeace activist to be the lead author on a section of their report on alternative energy and repackage his own earlier work with zero peer review or oversight.

I have no data, it is a theory, and like all scientist it is my job to disprove my theory. If I cannot disprove it then I will write a paper allowing others to disprove it. If they can't then it will eventually called a fact. This could take a while.

The writer of TFA is a well-known AGW advocate who routinely trolls everyone who isn't as pro-AGW as him, with all the charm and humor of a drunk fratboy. If you want to have serious discussion about this, find someone else to link to.

The Sun does not cool the Earth, nor did anyone claim that such was a possibility. It may simply warm it less, should the recent concerns pan out, but cooling it is out of the question. It's a giant ball of fire in the sky, not a giant A/C unit in the sky.

So an author (not a solar scientist) of a book writes a blurb for an online story with his opinion and refers to his book as proof?

Some of the NASA and other solar scientists are saying their is some probability of a lull in Solar Output based on the science evidence and models they form. Proof, no, not yet. But there are reasons to consider it possible.

More science observations and correlations will come in the next few years.

That global warming (increased CO2 in the atmosphere greenhouse effect) could cause a new ice age. The melting of greenland and other arctic ice could upset the salinity of the north atlantic current and if that current stopped northern europe would freeze.

Who is ignoring solar forcings? They are in basically every model. Straight out denial that ignores basically the whole literature on the subject is not "healthy skepticism"; by the way. Calling it such besmirches the name of every true skeptic out there.

Nice strawman argument. A 1% change in cloudiness would account for 100% of the surface temperature variability that we have seen since 1880. The climate models ignore the effects of changes in solar magnetic activity on cloudiness.

Strawman? Do you even know what that means??

He is right though, the climate models all take changes in solar activity into account. Just like they take many other effects into account as well for more accuracy.

Solar activity does fit pretty well with a lot of changes the last cen

Denialists are the only ones who have "everything figured out". Their adherence to their pet theory is immune to any criticism and when was the last time you saw error bars on a trend line from a denialist?

But if you look at the IPCC reports, you'll find that the climate science IS saying "We haven't figured it all out", but since you STILL insist that this isn't the case, rather proves that your statement is, in bald fact, false.

NOTE: They DO say "we've figured out enough to know what we ought to do". That

None of it matters. We are not going to stop using gas or burning coal. Period. Even if we did, China is definitely not going to... ever. When the atmosphere actually starts becoming toxic... then maybe something will be done... far too late, but that's what's going to happen.

I bet there was a guy just like you a hundred years ago who'd proclaim "We are not going to stop using horses or buggies. Period." The U.S. is paralyzed by greed and stupidity, so maybe you won't change until you have to but that will be your loss. The United States used to be a backwards former colony of little import, and many Americans seem intent on return to those "glory days". Frankly, I'm pretty sure the world will run out of oil and coal before the atmosphere could "turn toxic" (at least from CO

People aren't going to stop using fossil fuels until it's no longer financially viable to extract it from the Earth. At the rate we're going, that shouldn't take too long. Probably some time in the next century, coal and oil based power is going to become so expensive due to the rarity of the resource that we're going to shift to some combination of nuclear and renewable resources.

We are not going to stop using gas or burning coal. Period. Even if we did, China is definitely not going to... ever.

Sure, we (and they) will, when the gas and coal supplies run out. We just don't know exactly when that will be. But we do know that we're mining the deposits and burning them several orders of magnitude faster than the planet can replenish them or clear the combustion products from the atmosphere.

We also don't know how much damage we'll have done to the ecosystem by then. We just have a general estimate of the nature of that damage.

Either the climate guys are right, and changing our ways will save us trillions; or they're wrong, and changing our ways will save us trillions in oil imports over the next decade, dramatically reduce pollution and ecological damage from coal mining and oil production and gas fracking, reduce our need to spend so much on Defense, and not incidentally, reduce our need to send our kids off to die every time the Middle East hiccups.

Science never has everything figured out. You should be skeptical of science. But most arguments I've seen against global warming have nothing to do with healthy skepticism; they generally use made up evidence or faulty reasoning. In any case, we will need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions no matter what, because fossil fuels will not last forever. The only question is how quickly should we reduce them. Personally, I think it makes sense to reduce fossil fuel now use simply to reduce demand and avoid energy prices spiraling out of control, and to have sources of energy that do not depend on stability in the Middle East.

Agreed. This is my favorite reason for finding an alternative fuel. It will ease a lot of economic burdens, except in the Middle East, and stop giving hundreds of billions of dollars to dictators, and other people that care nothing about their people.

It's entirely possible to reduce CO2 emmissions without reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Likewise, it is possible to eliminate the use of fossil fuels while maintaining the current level of CO2 emissions. One does not necessarily follow the other.

I am a scientist. You should be sceptical of all science - that's how science *works*.

However, as the GP points out, 'being sceptical' does not mean simply disagreeing and arguing your point with made up evidence or ignorance of the facts which is almost always the case with politically sensitive science issues (climate change, stem cell research, nuclear energy etc).

When I read a paper in a good journal, I trust that it has been peer reviewed and any over-interpretation were addressed prior to publication. I know because that's how my papers were published. It doesn't always happen of course, scientists are usually too eager to create a story, but regardless, I trust the raw data collected in a study. Pretty much the only way to dispute data is to accuse them of forgery. In climate science, where everyone is looking over everyone's shoulder, it'd be pretty stupid to fo

It's pretty remarkable that this and so many other seemingly scientific issues (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.) get fractured along "liberal/conservative" lines. Some of those are targeted because they conflict with religious doctrine, for sure, but why should so many conservatives have so much of an emotional stake in climate science?

Rich people tell their political suck-ups that they don't want to spend money mitigating global warming.

Political suck-ups tell FOX news that global warming is not really happening.

FOX news tells 30% of the USA public that global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

FOX viewers wash it down with the kool-aide.

The anti-global-warming view is "conservative" because of the myth that US politics is about conservatives vs. liberals. Once you realize that US politics is actually about billionaires vs. the rest of us,

Radiative forcing is one of the first things to go into climate models; nowhere does it say 'ignore the huge nuclear furnace' since it's pretty much.... where the vast bulk of the energy comes from. To suggest that articles like this are what drive skeptics is just not really accurate. Skeptics are going to be doubting the results for any number of specific reasons, not just due to solar cycles.

This is because people are bad at quantitative analysis. Look, solar irradiance averages about 1366 W/m^2 and a has a variation of about 1 W/m^2 (using a one-year moving average). That's 0.073%. If the Earth's temperature was entirely determined by solar irradiance, then the temperature variation would be about 0.2 C. That is, you'd see an 11-year temperature cycle corresponding to the solar output cycle with temperatures varying +/- 0.1 C from the average over the course of this cycle.

There. A tiny bit of research on the Internet and some math and you too can put bounds on how much influence sunspot cycles have on Earth's temperature.

And yes, climate scientists are familiar with this. The sun has been kind of important to climate science since Arrhenius figured out the greenhouse effect in 1896 and used the Stefan-Boltzmann law to estimate the Earth's temperature dependence on CO2.

That's actually a maximum since even in this quiet phase the sun is changing and therefore isn't at the extreme end of the variation for any length of time.

The "mini ice age" had really nothing to do with the state of the sun. It was brought on by The Year Without A Summer (a disaster caused by a volcano not much smaller than a supervolcano shutting off virtually all sunlight for half a year). The disruption to the global reserviours of heat, the ocean currents and air currents, the plant life, etc, resulte

You're assuming that the irradiance is absorbed linearly as a black body by the earth, rather than driving potentially non-linear effects (clouds, ice caps, etc.). Yes, the model might work for the Moon, or other bodies with little-to-no atmosphere that have rigid surfaces fundamentally unchanged by variations in illuminance, but probably won't be that accurate for the Earth.

People are also bad at understanding complex effects, as your post shows. The surface temperature of the Earth is determined by insolation and reflectivity (along with atmospheric composition, oceanic current flow, heat from the core, drag from the moon and sun, etc.); you only considered insolation, and tacitly assumed linearity.

One of the most interesting ideas regarding climate variation is that the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth has a forcing term based on orbital variations; that there is an orbital effect on climate is known. The interesting part comes from *why* --- a colleague of mine published a paper in Nature suggesting that it is because as the Earth orbits the sun, it sweeps out the dust in its lane, and variations in the orbit translate to variations in how much dust gets accreted. He had some very nice core sample data of cosmogenic dust accretion over geological time periods that was, to my eye, quite convincing. Changes in the dust accretion, it was suggested, change the albedo by seeding clouds: more dust means more rain, more rain means less cloud cover, fewer clouds means reduced albedo.

Exactly the same ideas (variations in orbital position and sweeping out the orbital lane) are what allow astronomers to predict how strong a given meteor shower will be each year. Meteor showers are just accretion of somewhat larger grains of dust.

He didn't assume "that the irradiance is absorbed linearly as a black body by the earth", you did. He pointed out very clearly that variations in solar irradiance simply don't vary as much as people seem to believe.

In fact, when you mention "atmospheric composition, oceanic current flow, heat from the core, drag from the moon and sun" all you manage is to explicitly mention other factors that have greater variation than solar irradiance does.

And yet you were modded informative? GP was insightful in pointing out people don't understand the variability in the sun's output is negligible compared to other factors, demonstrates that the temperature changes experienced *must* be caused by other variable factors butt is modded 'interesting'. Sheesh.

What I'm really griping about is you added nothing to the discussion. You say "People are also bad at understanding complex effects, as your post shows" but all you really demonstrate is that your reading comprehension is fairly limited. And then get modded informative. Sheesh

The ability to predict solar activity has nothing to do with climatologists. Climatologists don't predict what the sun will do, they look at past solar activity and past temperatures and past human activity and a whole host of other data and develop models that explain what the climate will do based on what any of the others will do. (e.g. if the solar activity is X, the earth's temperature will respond Y, etc).

If the sun goes into an unexpectedly deep minimum, that doesn't mean climatologists "don't have everything figured out" because it has nothing to do with climatologists.

If the Sun does cool and earth does cool as a result, exactly according to climatologist models, I predict that the climate change deniers will still not notice.

As my wife likes to say to folks who say "Global Warming is a Hoax!" and go off a parrot some opinion they've heard from the pundits, why not clean up the air (we've been having smog warnings for weeks now)? Hoax or not, the things that will stop Global Warming will also clean up the air, why can't we do that? They usually agree.

Just admit you don't have everything figured out. I know that may give rise to healthy skepticism. People may not want to spend trillions in dollars to fix a problem you aren't certain about.

If estimates regarding the impact that man has on global warming are overrated, does that mean that it's no longer important to stop poisoning our air, ground, and water? Does that free us to ignore the more localized damage that we do know occurs? Do we no longer need to worry about seeking cleaner and renewable energy sources?

I'm sick of the whole debate over whether or not Global Warming is real or not. It's a red herring. It's not like the threat of impending doom is the only reason for being concer

As an aside, it is interesting that the other time of cold temperatures (late 18th century) corresponds to lower sun spot activity.

I like how the one event we have record of is rejected by these guys as if it's a coincidence (maybe it is, maybe not). But yet they are sure that THIS reduction in sunspots will not produce a cool period. I suppose those go together, if you reject the sun as cause for the first cooling, you should conclude this one is not going to have an effect. The question then is how can a

One small problem, though - the NOAA numbers for that time period came from a truncated data set.

For some unstated reason, NOAA decided that the previous number of stations was too large, and decided to stop using the full set. So they dropped a lot of stations. Not the ones in cities, or that had problems with siting (like next to air conditioning units), but a whole bunch of rural ones. Which had the effect of making the overall temperature seem to increase. For exactly the time period when other measurements showed a flat to decreasing graph.

People who looked at individual rural stations can't seem to find the "hotter" trend - and those are exactly the places you'd expect to find it.

The NOAA record seems to be more of a study of "how much has the Urban Heat Index measurement changed over the last couple of decades" than any serious accurate global heat measurement. Look at the http://www.surfacestations.org/ [surfacestations.org] website for examples of just how bad current ground instrument siting is. When you see an "official" thermometer station sitting in the middle of a recently-installed asphalt parking lot, you know it's going to be a bit warm when compared to the same one that's been in a grass field for 100 years...

I think you should read your post, my reply, and your reply again. You're not making any sense at all. How can it cool and yet also be the same temperature? How can 2011 be tied as the warmest year on record, if as you claim, "we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more"? If what you claim is true, it should be much cooled now that in 1998, not the same temperature. Can you think straight for a few seco

Of course this is not how adult, educated people conduct a discussion - you are involved in it, after all. Quite rich from a guy who refuses to support his allegedly well-known data to call out another one for "unsupported hearsay". I am still waiting for the link, mate.

Maybe you should actually look at the temperature record [wikipedia.org]. The years 2000-2009 were on average 0.2 degrees warmer than the years 1990-1999 which were themselves on average 0.24 degrees warmer than the years 1980-1989.

So you have no data at all, you are just lying. And then you demand an apology. Sure. By the way, the ad hominem fallacy means attacking the messenger regardless of his message to make the content of said message less believable. That is somewhat different from calling a liar a liar, now is it?

Oh no, I gonna pester you as long as you come up with the data that supposedly exists or until you admit to be a lying fuck. I am patient, mate, very patient. Guys like you need to be exposed for the frauds they are. So, data? Care to link it?

My data [nasa.gov] indicates that your claim that "we are in a cooling period" is wrong. It indicates exactly the opposite. If you feel that my data is not from a trustworthy source, please feel free to explain why.

"No one will trust my data so I'm not going to bother giving you any" is not an acceptable argument. You should be able to support your positions, and fortunately, you have made a claim for which plenty of data exists. Unfortunately, a great deal of it is contrary to your statement.

Your data are either showing nothing (stopping just right after 2000, when it's commonly admitted that temperature stopped to rise after 1998-2002, depending how you read curves), or showing local temperatures (USA only). And when it shows just a bit on the period that we are talking about (eg: 1998 - 2010), then it shows little to no rise at all.

Also, it's highly debatable to use the monthly average of (any kind of) average temperature on a given surface. That's basic thermodynamics: you should account e

The graph goes on until 2010, and the 10 hottest years are all in the last decade. The only exception is 1998, which was exceptionally warm due to a extreme El-NiÃ±o event. Last year, which didn't have such a big El-NiÃ±o was just as warm.

I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.

I am deeply suspicious of his scientific methodology if he finds the evidence for intelligent design to be greater than that for evolution.

Try lying harder? When exactly was the ozone hole made to be a reason for a cooling spell? The concern about stratospheric ozone was always about increased UV and thereby increased cancer risk. We happened to do something about it that worked by the way. Care to provide any source for your claims?

Not quite. The "press" learned that ice-ages were periodical from the discovery in the late 70s, and then started publishing crap like "Oh noes! We're heading for an ice-age!", despite being unequivocally denied by everyone in the field. So what we have today it people like you continuing the myth that it was valid information back then. It wasn't, so stop it!

Ozone is a different matter, it's is a real problem, and the govts lead by Thatcher did something about the cause. We now have to wait several decades

Not quite. The "press" learned that ice-ages were periodical from the discovery in the late 70s, and then started publishing crap like "Oh noes! We're heading for an ice-age!", despite being unequivocally denied by everyone in the field. So what we have today it people like you continuing the myth that it was valid information back then. It wasn't, so stop it!

Ozone is a different matter, it's is a real problem, and the govts lead by Thatcher did something about the cause. We now have to wait several decades for the damage to be repaired. Go and ask someone down-under about their massive hole and skin-cancer problem.

rather that the hole in the ozone layer and other environmental disasters would cause something I didn't pay attention to

FTFY

BTW, the reason things like the ozone layer and acid rain (which is one you apparently forgot) aren't so worrisome now is that we actually *did* something about them. Funny how seeing a problem, determining the correct solution, and then implementing the solution tends to actually produce positive results. It's certainly a lot better than sticking our heads in the sand or plugging our ears shouting "LA! LA! LA! I can't hear you!"

There are very few Scientific fact, but a lot of well supported theories. I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.

For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took

I kinda wish that scientist wouldn't just ignore crazy theories (Leaving people to think, that they are just making it up) that are popular but come up with tests that can prove or disprove them. And show them the results.

For global warming don't just show us a graph that shows a line shooting up. When we come up with different things show it off, prove to us that is wrong. Science had been lucky in the past, the average Joe took everything face value. But with rapid media, and some big mistakes in "Science" people are more distrusting. It is time for the Science Institution to change and regain peoples trust again.

What? No. I don't think you have a good grasp of how science works.

Scientists should be doing science. If your theory isn't falsifiable then it isn't science and therefore not their field at all. If your theory is falsifiable but does not match the current data, then it may have already been disproved and there is no need to waste time on it unless you can show that the data is wrong somehow. In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.

As for science making mistakes: that's an important part of the process. Science is all about trying things, making mistakes and correcting them. It's a slow progress toward the real truth, not a pre-determined truth to which facts are shaped to fit. Admitted mistakes aren't a sign that science isn't working; quite the opposite! That's how you know that science is trustworthy. Anyone who claims to have all the answers and never be wrong is the one you should be distrusting. Whether people recognize this is not the fault of, nor a problem for, scientists; willfully ignorant people will remain so, by definition, and it is entirely their own fault.

In the instance of global warming, scientists have disproved a few crazy theories and they have shown the data, but crackpots do not listen to evidence; that's why they are crackpots in the first place. The fact that you either haven't sought out or accepted the available proof shows that you're not really much interested in the truth yourself. This is not the fault of scientists; they've upheld their half of the bargain. You have to be open to the evidence.

Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.

Why does this always have to fall into politics.Frankly the global warming faithful are getting annoying. Before anyone has a freaking stroke let me lay out the facts as I seem them.1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.2. Over all we have been seeing a warming trend.Conclusion: even if the warming trend is not caused solely by the increase in CO2 gases reducing emissions is a good thing.There is is minus the politics and religion. I would even bet that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming trend.It is really that simple.Now for the true believers that are blaming global warming for everything from Hurricane Katrina to it snowing in Iran... Please learn the difference between climate and weather.

This article sounds as bad in it's way as crap from FOX news does the other way.Here is nice little bow for yourself."1) Claims of an imminent global ice age are at best exaggerated."Probably but that is opinion and not science. But then I have seen heard some pretty stupid things from the Church of Global Warming."2) The link of global cooling to an extended solar magnetic minimum is tenuous, and almost certainly needs something else to force it to occur (like lots of volcanoes)," Gee that sounds just like what the anti climate change people are saying. Yet when there are fewer sun spots the earths climate does cool. "This is from the very same piece""Having said all that, the sunspot cycle may have a very small effect on climate. You might think that since the spots are cooler than the solar surface we’d see a drop in light from the Sun and a corresponding cooling of the Earth during solar max. However, it’s actually the opposite! Sunspots are surrounded by a rim called faculae, and in this region the temperatures are actually higher than the average solar surface. This more than compensates for the cooler area of the spot; sunspots are about 1% dimmer than the solar surface, but faculae are 1.1 to 1.5% brighter. On top of that, faculae emit more UV than the solar surface does, and that wavelength of light is preferentially absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, increasing the efficiency of heating.So, bizarrely, sunspots tend to warm the Earth. That jibes with the idea of a cooling trend during solar minimum; fewer spots means fewer faculae, so the Sun emits less Earth-warming radiation.But when you look at the numbers, again, it’s not so simple. The effect from faculae is very small, not enough to significantly change the Earth’s temperature on their own."Except that little ice age did seem happen during that time. That is a fact. They may be unrelated but a change in the sun and the climate being unrelated seems like a very bad bet in my book.You see the conclusion I find odd. We have seeing a MASSIVE decrease in sunspot activity. We have never seen such an change in modern times. I really question just strongly he is pushing that conclusion. We are also seeing other changes in the suns magnetosphere as well. Since we have never seen such such a thing when we could study it as well I think he is making some massive leaps and throwing in "probables" here and there.This actually seems like a knee jerk reaction. It is probably a reasonable fear that some people will say "well lets burn more coal to stop this" but that doesn't stop it from being bad science. I think we are going to learn a not about the Sun in the next few years and I wouldn't be so sure about the outcome as this author seems to be.I wouldn't panic but then I never do.

The weather is about as meaningful to climate science as the ability to track individual gas molecules is meaningful to the physics of gasses. It is precisely because brownian motion is chaotic that the whole is statistically predictable. If it were not for the unpredictability on the micro scale, you could not have gasoline engines, pressure cookers or jet engines.

To claim that the weather channel's difficulties in predicting the impact on one small place at one small interval of time has any bearing on be

Who needs science when we have your unedchumicated opinion that ya just spew out.
Lets just all ignore the sun's effect on heating and lighting the planet when we have your computer models that can't predict the past, present, future, or weather next week.
Thanks for clearing it all up for us.

Thanks for intentionally misunderstanding the difference between weather and climate, dipshit. I guess you can ignore the predictions about when the tide will come in and out too since we can't predict accurately the timing, size and location of each and every wave that will crash on the shore.

I used to believe that CO2 could cause global warming but didn't think too deeply about it. Then they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. That got my attention and 'Global Warming' has become a bit of a hobby for me.

I used to believe that CO2 could cause global warming but didn't think too deeply about it. Then they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. That got my attention and 'Global Warming' has become a bit of a hobby for me.

I've noticed that some people who want to reject CO2 as a cause of global warming seem to become very obsessed with the "Medieval Warm Period."

Thinking about it rationally, it is an odd obsession. After all, even if some other cause produced warming back during the medieval period, that doe